If the beginnings of Genesis aren't literally true, then what way are they true?

[Mr Strawberry]

Scientists fit evidence to ideas all the time.

Hypothesis --> Evidence fitted --> Theory.

Bible --> Evidence fitted --> Truth.

As a hypothesis is just an intelligent guess, changing the hypothesis and trying again to see if it fits the evidence is no big deal. However, trying to fit the evidence to the bible is a different matter entirely, unless you think changing the bible is no big deal.

 

[Blue Wren]

http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis


It has truths, as an allegory. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

 

[SkyWriting]

We know for certain. They were edited and complied by committees of people.

Well, if that were true, why would the accounts be conflicting? There is no logic there.
So nobody on the committees said "Hey, lets get our stories straight?"

I don't mind if you make up fictions about what happened, but at least
YOUR version needs to be logical, and not just twisted to fit the biased
conclusion you're trying to support.

At least come up with a better story than the one you're attempting to disprove.

 

[Blue Wren]

That is true.

 

[SkyWriting]

Again we rely on very biased people for the date. People who had one intention when they wrote the gospels, people who had very biased intentions when they compiled the NT.

We know he wasn't born on December 25th. Was he born 1 AD? Well no. Did Herod order the killing of all the babies? No, the mass infanticide is legend. When did Herod die? No one's sure, can we use the "Star of Bethlehem"? A Saviour has to be born as predicted, or he has no validity. Even if he was born at the time of the Comet, it was 5 BC.

We now have a gap of 11 years. And everything written in the bible, about what happened in 4,000 BC, according to the biblical scholars, is 100% true. They can't even get the simple stuff right.

You're saying two conflicting things. People had biased intentions when
they compiled the NT.......yet they wrote itdown so that it doesn't fit history.

It's far more likely that your history is wrong and the account is correct.
You just don't know the history correctly. As time passes, this happens.

This is caused by "We know everything" disease where we take take what
little information we have, call it "Reality" and judge everything on that.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Well, if that were true, why would the accounts be conflicting? There is no logic there.

You should have seen what they left out. Once they'd got it down to just 4 versions they must have said "we can't very well chuck out any more, let's just go with this and hope for the best".

 

[SkyWriting]

You should have seen what they left out. Once they'd got it down to just 4 versions they must have said "we can't very well chuck out any more, let's just go with this and hope for the best".

Editing them to make them fit perfectly is more logical. Your theory needs to
be better than the one you're trying to discredit.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Editing them to make them fit perfectly is more logical. Your theory needs to
be better than the one you're trying to discredit.

Well, you've got what they produced to check against. And what they produced looks like making the best of a bad job.

 

[SkyWriting]

They can't even get the simple stuff right.

Why would they not be able to get the simple stuff right?
Was this rushed to print?
No time for editing?
The boss insisted that they slap it together before the scribes nap-time?

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, you've got what they produced to check against. And what they produced looks like making the best of a bad job.

Much more likely, it's been gone over with a fine tooth comb for mistakes.
The "Rush to scribe it!" theory has no sound basis outside of your lack
of contextual knowledge.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Much more likely, it's been gone over with a fine tooth comb for mistakes.
The "Rush to scribe it!" theory has no sound basis outside of your lack
of contextual knowledge.

That fine tooth comb must have had a lot a teeth missing then.

 

[Goonie]

Much more likely, it's been gone over with a fine tooth comb for mistakes.
The "Rush to scribe it!" theory has no sound basis outside of your lack
of contextual knowledge.

Sounds more likey had multiple texts and chose those that suited their theology. Remember the new testement is the result of one group of christians winning the argument over the rest. Those for example who used the gnostic gospels, of which the gospel of thomas is potentially evidence of an early gnostic tradition, and the other christian churches who had their own ideas of what was scripture.

 

[SkyWriting]

That fine tooth comb must have had a lot a teeth missing then.

And why would that be? What about a second wave of editors?
What about the first wave of editors?
What about when they were written, people would correct errors then?

 

[SkyWriting]

Sounds more likey had multiple texts and chose those that suited their theology. Remember the new testement is the result of one group of christians winning the argument over the rest. Those for example who used the gnostic gospels, of which the gospel of thomas is potentially evidence of an early gnostic tradition, and the other christian churches who had their own ideas of what was scripture.

That wouldn't explain why there would be conflicting internal stories. Just the opposite.
If they had control over what gets saved, it should be error free.

 

[Goonie]

That wouldn't explain why there would be conflicting internal stories. Just the opposite.
If they had control over what gets saved, it should be error free.

The individual texts had been around long enough that substantial changes would have caused uproar in the early church, as different communities venerated different gospels/scripture. The books were chosen as the best, and most consistant - no walking and talking crosses! But as you say full of discrepances and translation errors.

 

[paulm50]

Well, if that were true, why would the accounts be conflicting? There is no logic there.
So nobody on the committees said "Hey, lets get our stories straight?"

I don't mind if you make up fictions about what happened, but at least
YOUR version needs to be logical, and not just twisted to fit the biased
conclusion you're trying to support.

At least come up with a better story than the one you're attempting to disprove.

If no one in the committees said "Hey, lets get our stories straight?" it would of ended like it did. We know the committees did the compiling, we know they left out some important gospels of people with direct contact with Jesus. The problem is they made sure as much direct evidence was destroyed.

You're saying because there are discrepancies, they must all be true. And relying on Government committees to get it right.

The Council of Nicaea and the Bible. If people want to put everything blindly into the hands of 300 religious leaders. Three centuries after Jesus lived. Then they may. Read this part.

Christianity consisted of many sects. By converting Constantine (The Great) the Paul heresy triumphed as the concept of trinity and the ending of the Mosaic law (which made swine flesh permissible) brought this version of
Christianity very close to the Hellenic paganism that was practiced in Rome and Greece. At Nicea Constantine had 300 versions of the Bible burnt, thus legitimising and patronizing only the Paulic heresy.

 

[paulm50]

You're saying two conflicting things. People had biased intentions when
they compiled the NT.......yet they wrote itdown so that it doesn't fit history.

It's far more likely that your history is wrong and the account is correct.
You just don't know the history correctly. As time passes, this happens.

So why are the four gospels different?

Are you saying they deliberately got it wrong, to make it look right?

This is caused by "We know everything" disease where we take take what
little information we have, call it "Reality" and judge everything on that.

Good point, a bit like those who claim the bible is right.

That wouldn't explain why there would be conflicting internal stories. Just the opposite.
If they had control over what gets saved, it should be error free.

Best explanation yet. The Council of Nicosia had no control over what was chosen.
Not being sarcastic, I'm looking at it with some thought.

So did god tell them which ones to include and he's too blame?

Or should we go back to the time and circumstances. This is a council is 300+ all with different opinions and axes to grind. The church at the time was split in the middle over whether Christ was divine.

And when we get 300 politicians in a room, who knows what comes out the other end with them all wanting their bit kept in.

The notion of the sitting down and deciding to get it right, or wrong. doesn't hold water. We know the stories don't match. The shame is the 100s of stories that were burnt.

 

[SkyWriting]

So why are the four gospels different?
Are you saying they deliberately got it wrong, to make it look right?

I'm saying they are different perspectives of the same events. Once you start from
that premise, then they all tell the same story.

There is no logical scenario where the stories would end up different. If they were
exactly the same, it would just be the same words, written 4 times.

 

[Doveaman]

We're not sharing what we know, we're sharing what billions have learned.

If you are not sharing what you know, then you don't know what you are sharing. So why should I care?

 

[Doveaman]

Scientists fit evidence to ideas all the time.

Examples?

Hypothesis --> Evidence fitted --> Theory.

Why shouldn't science be taught in schools?

I didn't say science. I said evolution theory.